OT: The more things change ... (Sergio in Sacto)

[andalusian]

Nellie does tend to like guys who can put he ball in the basket. That elminates Sergio. He'd be rotting away there, too behind Monta Ellis and Steph Curry (who can both put the ball in the basket a lot better than Sergio).

I did not say it would happen, I said I would love to see him on a team like that.

 

[Boob-No-More]

He's 6'7... you don't think he could play small forward? I know he's pretty thin, but it's a far cry from Steve Blake or even Rudy.

Maybe for 5 minutes a game with a small line-up, but no more than that. If we had Roy and Martin one of them would have to start and play most of their minutes out of position. We already know from Nate's 3-guard experiment that that doesn't work well for Roy. His scoring was down, his shooting percentages were way down and he was stuck guarding (and being guarded by) bigger, stronger, longer players. And Roy is stronger physically than Martin.

The NBA is loaded with "big" small forwards - guys who either have great length (Durant, Anthony, Gay, etc.), are very strong (Artest, Maggette, Gerald Wallace, etc.) or guys who have a combination of size and strength (Anthony, Lebron). A skinny 6'7" shooting guard would get killed on a nightly basis by these guys.

BNM

 

[Boob-No-More]

Guess who leads the Kings in +/-? I'm actually surprised that Martin isn't their worst minus player. But he is worst per minute of all of their rotation players.

For the one millionth time, +/- is a TEAM stat, not an individual stat. It's is HIGHLY influenced by the other nine players on the court. Sacramento is a bad team. They get outscored in the majority of their games. So, it's only logical that a guy who starts and plays 38 minutes will have a worse +/- than a guy who occasionally plays 6 - 7 minutes of garbage time.

In either case, the sample size is ridiculously small for both players. It's small for Martin because he's only played in 9 games and it's small for Sergio because he racks up a lot of DNPs.

BNM

 

[MARIS61]

unadjusted plus-minus is a lot 'noisier' than adjusted plus-minus, and even adjusted needs more of a sample size than what Sergio has been able to produce to be meaningful.

You and other Sergio-haters have maintained this confused stance for 3 years now, but only in the selective cases of Sergio and Blake.

If Bayless or now Miller have a game where they are + (admittedly a rarity) you go hog-wild over the stat.

It's just as stupid as saying LeBron's scoring ability is just "noise".

 

[Boob-No-More]

You and other Sergio-haters have maintained this confused stance for 3 years now, but only in the selective cases of Sergio and Blake.

I know you're not addressing me, but I agree +/- is the most misunderstood, misused stat I know of. I absolutely HATE this stat and the way people who should know better constantly misuse it. Anyone who uses it as a single player, single game stat just doesn't understand what it means, or does so intentionally to prop up or put down a specific player.

It can be used for spotting long terms trends, but you really need a LOT of data for even that usage. As it is calculated, an individual player only contributes 1/10 of his own +/- score. There are nine other players on the court, and those nine other players are constantly changing over the course of a game and over the course of a season. There are just too many variables for this stat to be meaningful in a small sample size.

If Bayless or now Miller have a game where they are + (admittedly a rarity) you go hog-wild over the stat.

I know you never let facts get in the way of your hatred, but for the record, Andre Miller has been on the positive side of the +/- stat four games in a row to the tune of +44 - the highest on the team over that stretch. But, as we already agreed the sample size is too small to be meaningful - other than to be used by haters to justify their hatred of a certain player.

BNM

 

[andalusian]

For the one millionth time, +/- is a TEAM stat, not an individual stat.

For the millionth time, basketball is a TEAM game, not an individual game. This stat, given a large sample size - shows fit and proper use by the coaches, ignoring it is silly. The truth is, however, that in Sergio's case (and Martin's) - there isn't enough data, he (Sergio) just does not play enough, and in Martin's case - he did not this year.

But, to ignore it - would be stupid. We have seen from Durant's case - that for 2 years, his +/- was very bad, and the team's performance, was also bad. This year, on the other hand, his +/- is much much better - and the Thunder look like a real team out there.

Of course, it is easier to see it in Durant's case because he is the main-cog in the system, and the Thunder go as far as he goes - but the evidence is there. The Cavs are a lot better when side-show Bob plays, and he is not a main-cog in the machine - but his +/- is just fantastic. There is real value to this data, and ignoring it is just sticking your head in the sand and hoping it will go away. It will not, an should not.

 

[hasoos]

If Rodriguez had Martin's contract and vice versa, then their minutes would be similarly reversed. Martin is just as one-dimensional, and has far worse +/- numbers. Have the Kings won a game since he's back?

Um yea I am sure their talent levels are near the same.......

 

[Nikolokolus]

You and other Sergio-haters have maintained this confused stance for 3 years now, but only in the selective cases of Sergio and Blake.

If Bayless or now Miller have a game where they are + (admittedly a rarity) you go hog-wild over the stat.

It's just as stupid as saying LeBron's scoring ability is just "noise".

I don't give a shit about Bayless' or Miller's plus-minus for half a season, and I think it is widely misused and misunderstood statistic ... despite the fact that both players have had one of the better adjusted plus-minus in the past month and a half or so -- but that's beside the point.

As for hating Sergio, I don't hide the fact that I was happy to see him go, but that doesn't mean I hate the guy; in a more open court system he's finally shown that he can at least be marginally effective finally at least on offense, but his defense man-to-man defense is still shoddy as ever.

Anyways, it doesn't matter, he's two steps from heading back to the ACB.

 

[Boob-No-More]

For the millionth time, basketball is a TEAM game, not an individual game. This stat, given a large sample size - shows fit and proper use by the coaches, ignoring it is silly. The truth is, however, that in Sergio's case (and Martin's) - there isn't enough data, he (Sergio) just does not play enough, and in Martin's case - he did not this year.

Umm... if you read the rest of my post (the part you didn't quote) you'd see I said the EXACT SAME THING.

I was referring specifically to the misuse of the +/- stat comparing Martin to Sergio by the poster I quoted. As you agree, the sample size is WAY to small to be meaningful - and that was my beef with the poster I quoted. I have the same beef with people who use +/- as a single player, single game stat - totally meaningless and constantly misused.

BNM

 

[MARIS61]

Get a clue people, Sergio ranks 18th among Western guards for overall efficiency per 48min.

http://www.nba.com/statistics/playe...alified=N&yearsExp=-1&sortOrder=7&splitDD=All Teams

Roy ranks 7th, and all other Blazers pale in comparison.

Miller is 20th, Bayless 33rd, Rudy 54th, Blake 69th.

ALL STATS ARE PER 48 MINUTES:

Defense? Sergio is the better defender, eclipsing ALL of Portland's guards in blocks:

http://www.nba.com/statistics/playe...alified=N&yearsExp=-1&sortOrder=3&splitDD=All Teams

Blowing away all Portland guards except Rudy in steals:

http://www.nba.com/statistics/playe...alified=N&yearsExp=-1&sortOrder=3&splitDD=All Teams

Better rebounder than Bayless and Blake:

http://www.nba.com/statistics/playe...sortOrder=7&splitDD=All+Teams&pager.offset=50

He's also 7th in assists (Miller is 19th, Brandon 36th, Bayless 38th, Blake 39th, Rudy 52nd):

http://www.nba.com/statistics/playe...alified=N&yearsExp=-1&sortOrder=5&splitDD=All Teams

Assists to Turnover ratio comparison (Blake 12th, Miller 26th, Sergio 28th, Brandon 29th, Bayless 32nd, Rudy 69th):

http://www.nba.com/statistics/playe...alified=N&yearsExp=-1&sortOrder=6&splitDD=All Teams

Better FG% than Blake, Bayless or Rudy:

http://www.nba.com/statistics/playe...cope=GAME&qualified=N&yearsExp=-1&splitDD=All Teams

Better 3pt% than Brandon, Bayless and Miller:

http://www.nba.com/statistics/playe...cope=GAME&qualified=N&yearsExp=-1&splitDD=All Teams

 

[Boob-No-More]

Get a clue people, Sergio ranks 18th among Western guards for overall efficiency per 48min.

http://www.nba.com/statistics/playe...alified=N&yearsExp=-1&sortOrder=7&splitDD=All Teams

Roy ranks 7th, and all other Blazers pale in comparison.

Miller is 20th, Bayless 33rd, Rudy 54th, Blake 69th.

ALL STATS ARE PER 48 MINUTES:

Defense? Sergio is the better defender, eclipsing ALL of Portland's guards in blocks:

http://www.nba.com/statistics/playe...alified=N&yearsExp=-1&sortOrder=3&splitDD=All Teams

Blowing away all Portland guards except Rudy in steals:

http://www.nba.com/statistics/playe...alified=N&yearsExp=-1&sortOrder=3&splitDD=All Teams

Better rebounder than Bayless and Blake:

http://www.nba.com/statistics/playe...sortOrder=7&splitDD=All+Teams&pager.offset=50

He's also 7th in assists (Miller is 19th, Brandon 36th, Bayless 38th, Blake 39th, Rudy 52nd):

http://www.nba.com/statistics/playe...alified=N&yearsExp=-1&sortOrder=5&splitDD=All Teams

Assists to Turnover ratio comparison (Blake 12th, Miller 26th, Sergio 28th, Brandon 29th, Bayless 32nd, Rudy 69th):

http://www.nba.com/statistics/playe...alified=N&yearsExp=-1&sortOrder=6&splitDD=All Teams

Better FG% than Blake, Bayless or Rudy:

http://www.nba.com/statistics/playe...cope=GAME&qualified=N&yearsExp=-1&splitDD=All Teams

Better 3pt% than Brandon, Bayless and Miller:

http://www.nba.com/statistics/playe...cope=GAME&qualified=N&yearsExp=-1&splitDD=All Teams

Yawn....

All that and he can't get his ass off the bench and in the game for a team with a 0.366 winning percentage.

BNM

 

[Boob-No-More]

For the millionth time, basketball is a TEAM game, not an individual game.

I have no idea why that comment was directed at me, becuase that's EXACTLY the point I've been making regarding the +/- stat for the last 2 - 3 weeks.

Basketball is a team sport. +/- is a team stat. You simply cannot remove the impact of the team on the stat.

If you put a good, or even great, player on a really bad team, they will have a negative +/-.

Basketball = team sport
+/- = team stat
bad team = bad +/-

Conversely, you could have put an 8-year old child on the 1992 Dream Team and they would have had a highly positive +/-

Basketball = team sport
+/- = team stat
great team = great +/-

Anyone misusing +/- as an individual stat is ignoring the team aspect of the game and the team's influence on a player's +/- rating. You simply cannot separate the two. A good player on a bad team will have a worse +/- than a bad player on a good team. Because, any way you slice it, basketball is a team sport and +/- is a team stat.

BNM

 

[Nikolokolus]

Get a clue people, Sergio ranks 18th among Western guards for overall efficiency per 48min.

http://www.nba.com/statistics/playe...alified=N&yearsExp=-1&sortOrder=7&splitDD=All Teams

Roy ranks 7th, and all other Blazers pale in comparison.

Miller is 20th, Bayless 33rd, Rudy 54th, Blake 69th.

ALL STATS ARE PER 48 MINUTES:

Defense? Sergio is the better defender, eclipsing ALL of Portland's guards in blocks:

http://www.nba.com/statistics/playe...alified=N&yearsExp=-1&sortOrder=3&splitDD=All Teams

Blowing away all Portland guards except Rudy in steals:

http://www.nba.com/statistics/playe...alified=N&yearsExp=-1&sortOrder=3&splitDD=All Teams

Better rebounder than Bayless and Blake:

http://www.nba.com/statistics/playe...sortOrder=7&splitDD=All+Teams&pager.offset=50

He's also 7th in assists (Miller is 19th, Brandon 36th, Bayless 38th, Blake 39th, Rudy 52nd):

http://www.nba.com/statistics/playe...alified=N&yearsExp=-1&sortOrder=5&splitDD=All Teams

Assists to Turnover ratio comparison (Blake 12th, Miller 26th, Sergio 28th, Brandon 29th, Bayless 32nd, Rudy 69th):

http://www.nba.com/statistics/playe...alified=N&yearsExp=-1&sortOrder=6&splitDD=All Teams

Better FG% than Blake, Bayless or Rudy:

http://www.nba.com/statistics/playe...cope=GAME&qualified=N&yearsExp=-1&splitDD=All Teams

Better 3pt% than Brandon, Bayless and Miller:

http://www.nba.com/statistics/playe...cope=GAME&qualified=N&yearsExp=-1&splitDD=All Teams

Well fuck! Why don't his coaches recognize his brilliance? I tell you, it's a fucking conspiracy meant to keep him down. Don't they know they have a future hall of famer on their roster?

 

[andalusian]

Basketball is a team sport. +/- is a team stat. You simply cannot remove the impact of the team on the stat.

Of course not, but the same is true for scoring, assists, blocks and the like. They, too, are impacted by the team you are on and the opponents you play.

Basketball = team sport
+/- = team stat

+/- is an individual stat in the context of the team, it is not a team stat - otherwise every player on the team will have the same +/-

Anyone misusing +/- as an individual stat is ignoring the team aspect of the game and the team's influence on a player's +/- rating.

+/- IS an individual stat. Same as PER, same as scoring, same as rebounds. All of those stats are influenced by the team and the opponents as well...

You simply cannot separate the two.

Just like scoring, rebounds, assists... You put Adam Morrison on Gonzaga and he is a great scorer, you put him on the Lakers and he is a ticking expiring contract...

A good player on a bad team will have a worse +/- than a bad player on a good team. Because, any way you slice it, basketball is a team sport and +/- is a team stat.

+/- is not a team stat. It is influenced by team members, just like all other individual stats. Pretending it is not is absurd. What can be said is that +/- has more volatility to team influence in small samples, but it is an individual stat in the context we discuss it.

 

[MARIS61]

Of course not, but the same is true for scoring, assists, blocks and the like. They, too, are impacted by the team you are on and the opponents you play.



+/- is an individual stat in the context of the team, it is not a team stat - otherwise every player on the team will have the same +/-



+/- IS an individual stat. Same as PER, same as scoring, same as rebounds. All of those stats are influenced by the team and the opponents as well...



Just like scoring, rebounds, assists... You put Adam Morrison on Gonzaga and he is a great scorer, you put him on the Lakers and he is a ticking expiring contract...



+/- is not a team stat. It is influenced by team members, just like all other individual stats. Pretending it is not is absurd. What can be said is that +/- has more volatility to team influence in small samples, but it is an individual stat in the context we discuss it.

Exactly.

Repped.

 

[Minstrel]

+/- is not a team stat. It is influenced by team members, just like all other individual stats. Pretending it is not is absurd. What can be said is that +/- has more volatility to team influence in small samples, but it is an individual stat in the context we discuss it.

The difference between +/- and PER or scoring average is that +/- is measuring team performance and hoping to glean something from the correlation of a specific player being on the court during that team performance being measured.

Measures like PER and scoring averages, while affected by players around them, measure the individual's productivity.

So while there is teammate/opponent influence on all stats, there's also a significant qualitative difference between indirect stats like +/- (which measure team performance while a player is on the court) and direct statistics like PER, PPG, etc (which measure an individual's production).

 

[MIXUM]

why are we still talking about sergio?

he will be out of the nba by 2012 playing in europe as a backup

 

[andalusian]

The difference between +/- and PER or scoring average is that +/- is measuring team performance and hoping to glean something from the correlation of a specific player being on the court during that team performance being measured.

Of course, it is more a measure of fit, rather than individual talent. But, it is just as important in the grand scheme of winning a basketball game as it is not. It should be noted, however, that it provides a glimpse into the world of defense which most other "mostly individual" stats do not measure.

Measures like PER and scoring averages, while affected by players around them, measure the individual's productivity.

Within the system. Again, if a player is relegated to a support role because the team has a better offensive player (or one that the coaches think of as better) - the PER formula will not really provide a very good measuring stick of the player's real talent - which is exactly what BNM was arguing against +/-

So while there is teammate/opponent influence on all stats, there's also a significant qualitative difference between indirect stats like +/- (which measure team performance while a player is on the court) and direct statistics like PER, PPG, etc (which measure an individual's production).

I am not buying the "qualitative" argument one bit.

In a very simple, obvious way, you are right. +/- is not an easy to decipher and "verify by observation" statistic, where scoring, rebounding or a compounded version of these (PER) is easier to "see". But, just because you do not see it, does not render it less important. The obvious examples of "good stats on a bad team" are a shining beacon on the obvious issues with these very same "easy to decipher" individual stats.

I go back to the claim that basketball is a team sport, and the value of a player to the team goes beyond his easy to measure simple stats. If you only look for the answers under the street light because it's easy to see there - you should not be surprised to find out that the answers you seek are not found...

You put a great engine on a chassis that is not built to handle it - and the result is a crap automobile. +/-, in large sample sizes, and win% even more so (because it reduces the volatility of the outliers) is a way that gives you a long-term view on the fit and value of the individual parts in the team. Ignoring them, or waving your hand at them with the claim that they are "team stats" is just absurd.

 

[Minstrel]

In a very simple, obvious way, you are right. +/- is not an easy to decipher and "verify by observation" statistic, where scoring, rebounding or a compounded version of these (PER) is easier to "see". But, just because you do not see it, does not render it less important.

That wasn't what I was saying at all. I had a very simple, obvious, correct point that you missed: +/- is measuring team performance (score differential achieved by the team) while the player is on the floor.

Measures like PER or PPG or RPG measure individual performance.

These are clearly qualitatively different things. +/- has an added layer of abstraction, trying to see how individual performance is reflected in team performance. That doesn't make it useless, but it does make it useless in small sample sizes, since an individual's performance is not likely to be well-reflected by team performance in short stretches, where luck or differing caliber of teammates can easily overwhelm the effect of the player you're interested in.

I don't think +/- is a team stat. It's an indirect individual stat and, as such, requires much, much more sample size to generate any meaningful conclusions than do direct individual stats. And I question the value of raw +/- over any sample size. A player can easily be on teams with bad teammates around him over multiple seasons. Adjusted +/- metrics, that attempt to adjust for teammates, I think can be quite useful with multiple seasons of data.

 

[Boob-No-More]

Of course not, but the same is true for scoring, assists, blocks and the like. They, too, are impacted by the team you are on and the opponents you play.

The individual stats you mentioned are much more dependent on individual talent, size, athleticism, etc. than +/- is. +/- is MUCH more dependent on the the quality of a player's teammates. It's not even close to the same thing. An individual's scoring is more impacted by his own shooting ability, athleticism, ability to get create high percentage scoring opporttunities than it is by the play of a his teammates.

Sure, a player's individual stats are impacted to a small degree by his teammates, but if you put Michael Jordan on the Clippers during his prime he still wins a ton of scoring titles. Ditto for Dennis Rodman. He would have led the league in rebounding no matter who he played for in his prime (he led the league in rebounding multiple times for three different teams).

+/- is an individual stat in the context of the team, it is not a team stat - otherwise every player on the team will have the same +/-

Wrong. Every player on the team does get the exact same +/- for the time period they are on the floor together. Every players +/- is highly influenced by the play of his teammates and his opponents. Bad players are rewarded by playing with better teammates and good players are penalized by playing with subpar teammates. For example:

The same five man unit plays a six minute stretch together. Player A plays great basketball. He scores 14 points on 4-4 from the field and 6-6 from the line as he draws three fouls on the opposition, getting their big men in foul trouble and his team shooting the penalty early. He plays lockdown defense and holds his man scoreless. He dishes out three assists, pulls down four rebounds, has a blocked shot, two steals and zero turnovers.

His teammate, Player B stinks up the gym. He shoots 0-6, turns the ball over four times, has zero assists, zero steals, zero blocked shots and zero rebounds. On the other end, he gets lit up by his man for 12 points. So, at the end of that six minute stretch, both players, along with their three other teammates, will have the exact same +/-, because +/- is a team stat. No individual +/- ratings are awarded. The +/- all players get is indentical and not a direct reflection of their individual contributions.

If they are ahead, Player B, in spite of his truly awful play, is rewarded with the exact same positive +/- as Player A. If they are behind, Player A, in spite of doing everything possible to help his team win, gets a negative +/- thanks to teammate who can't shoot for shit, fumbles the ball away and plays non-existent defense.

That, is exactly the problem with the way people in this forum misuse the +/- stat.

+/- IS an individual stat. Same as PER, same as scoring, same as rebounds.

No, it's not. If five players play together for six minutes they will ALL have the exact same +/- for that six minute stretch. During those same six minutes, they will not all have exactly the same PER, scoring and rebounding stats. If the team grabs a total of 10 rebounds (6 for Player A, 3 fopr Player B, 1 for Player C and zero for players D and E), they don't all get credit for having 10 rebounds. They each get credit for the rebounds they grabbed. Same for scoring. +/- is TEAM stat and is based on TEAM performance, not individual performance, during those six minutes. PER, scoring and rebounding measure each players contributions in those specific areas. Totally, totally different.

All of those stats are influenced by the team and the opponents as well...

To a MUCH, MUCH, MUCH lesser degree than +/-. It's not even close to the same.

Just like scoring, rebounds, assists... You put Adam Morrison on Gonzaga and he is a great scorer, you put him on the Lakers and he is a ticking expiring contract...

Are you saying Adam Morrison's inability to score in the NBA is the fault of his inferior Laker teammates? I don't think that's what you meant, but that's how it came out. Adam Morrison doesn't suck because he's on a bad team. Morrison's inability to score in the NBA is nobody's fault but his own. He simply is not athletic enough to get his shot off against the athletes he plays against in the NBA. He happens to already play on one of the best teams in the league, but he still sucks. Surround him with even better players, and guess what, he'll still suck.

- is not a team stat. It is influenced by team members, just like all other individual stats. Pretending it is not is absurd. What can be said is that +/- has more volatility to team influence in small samples, but it is an individual stat in the context we discuss it.

Nope. Wrong again. It is a team stat. All five players who are on the court at the same time get the exact same +/- reguardless of how much or how little they contribute. If it was an individual stat, they would all get different +/- ratings based on their individual contributions.

Over the course of a game, a season or a career, it is simply the summation of the player's teams' +/- while they were on the court and not a direct reflection of a players individual contributions to his teams' success.

BNM

 

[Boob-No-More]

That wasn't what I was saying at all. I had a very simple, obvious, correct point that you missed: +/- is measuring team performance (score differential achieved by the team) while the player is on the floor.

Measures like PER or PPG or RPG measure individual performance.

Exactly! Put a good player on a bad team and he'll have a negative +/-. Doesn't mean he's a bad player. It just means he's playing on a bad team.

Put that exact same player on a team where he's surrounded by great players and suddenly his +/- skyrockets. The rapid increase in his +/- is not a function of his individual play. He didn't instantaneously go from being a "bad" player (negative +/-) to a "great" one (highly positive +/-). He simply went from a bad team to a great team - and his +/- rating is a direct relfection of the quality of his teammates, not the quality of his own play. Because... +/- is a team stat, not an individual stat.

BNM

 

[Rastapopoulos]

Every player on the team does get the exact same +/- for the time period they are on the floor together.

So... if a player has the BEST +/- on the team, he miraculously manages to luck into being on the court when the team is playing well better than any other player. Kind of a lucky charm, I guess. You'd think, given how sucky the Kings are, they might want more of the lucky charm rather than less. But then, there are things like "contracts" and "showcasing to offload" and stuff.

 

[Rastapopoulos]

[Kevin Martin]'s not one dimensional at all. He shoots the ball well from deep.

Indeed he does - currently 41% for the season. Of course, Sergio's no slouch - 36% for the season. Hey, maybe he's not one-dimensional either!

He gets to the free throw line.

True.

He steals the ball at a good clip.

Not as good a clip as Sergio (2.4 to 2.0 steals per 48), but not bad.

He might be "one dimensional" in terms of "he can only score", but considering that one dimension is nearly half of the entire game, it's much more important than a guy who can only pass.

This is a classic, even for you, Ed. I love how you come up with ridiculous quantifications. "Nearly half"? Why only "nearly half"? And how much of a game is passing, do tell. 27% perhaps?

Look, to me it boils down to this: Kevin Martin is a shorter version of last year's Kevin Durant. He does the flashy stuff that people notice (putting the ball in the basket). But if you've played basketball much, you know that that doesn't mean all that much. That just means he wants the glamor job. But does he help his teammates get easier scores? Does he work hard on D? Or is he that jackass who cherrypicks and never helps out?

Meanwhile, if you've ever played with a guy like Sergio (whose gifts, however "one-dimensional" are a fuck of a lot rarer than Martin's), it's fun for the whole team. Everybody gets to score. Everybody feels like they're actually part of the team and valued, and they work harder.

Now, I'm not saying that Sergio is a great player. And maybe he doesn't deserve big minutes in the NBA. But to say that he deserves DNP-CDs on the Kings is laughable. Yes, his defense is bad. But it's probably better than half their fucking team. Look at Hawes. Look at Udrih. Look at Martin. In fact, Evans, Brockman and possibly Nocioni (although injuries have taken a lot out of him) are the only players obviously better than him. And what message are you sending if you bench the player who, for whatever reason, and for whatever sample-size, has been helping your team more than any other while he's been on the court this season?

 

[Rastapopoulos]

Exactly! Put a good player on a bad team and he'll have a negative +/-. Doesn't mean he's a bad player. It just means he's playing on a bad team.

So maybe, just maybe, the way to evaluate +/- is not to look at absolute values, but relative to a player's teammates? Or would that just make too much sense?

Put that exact same player on a team where he's surrounded by great players and suddenly his +/- skyrockets.

You make it sound like players operate in a vacuum and have nothing to do with other players or are not adaptable. And it doesn't seem to occur to you that the converse is true: that a player's PER is very much dependent on how a coach uses him, and to what extent his teammates help him get easy shots or feed him the ball.

 

[STOMP]

Rasta... are you really claiming that Martin isn't obviously better then Sergio but Brockman is???

STOMP

 

[andalusian]

The individual stats you mentioned are much more dependent on individual talent, size, athleticism, etc.

So what? Basketball games are not won only on individual talent.

Wrong. Every player on the team does get the exact same +/- for the time period they are on the floor together.

Which is why we need more than a small sample size. If basketball games were played by rigid 5 men groups, the stat would have very little significance. Since it does not...

Every players +/- is highly influenced by the play of his teammates and his opponents. Bad players are rewarded by playing with better teammates and good players are penalized by playing with subpar teammates. For example:

The same five man unit plays a six minute stretch together. Player A plays great basketball. He scores 14 points on 4-4 from the field and 6-6 from the line as he draws three fouls on the opposition, getting their big men in foul trouble and his team shooting the penalty early. He plays lockdown defense and holds his man scoreless. He dishes out three assists, pulls down four rebounds, has a blocked shot, two steals and zero turnovers.

His teammate, Player B stinks up the gym. He shoots 0-6, turns the ball over four times, has zero assists, zero steals, zero blocked shots and zero rebounds. On the other end, he gets lit up by his man for 12 points. So, at the end of that six minute stretch, both players, along with their three other teammates, will have the exact same +/-, because +/- is a team stat. No individual +/- ratings are awarded. The +/- all players get is indentical and not a direct reflection of their individual contributions.

If they are ahead, Player B, in spite of his truly awful play, is rewarded with the exact same positive +/- as Player A. If they are behind, Player A, in spite of doing everything possible to help his team win, gets a negative +/- thanks to teammate who can't shoot for shit, fumbles the ball away and plays non-existent defense.

Again, anecdotal evidence and statistics do not mix well. I understand pretty well the idea of the inter-dependence between players and their +/- with their team-mates in each INDIVIDUAL segment. The idea about statistics is to take a lot of these small instances with many "random" events (with random in this sense being who their team-mates and opponents were at that specific segment) - and come to a quantitative value for their contributions using a small enough margin of error. Of course, if you look at the formulas to calculate the margin of error (or confidence in the mean) you will see that for Gausian formulas (which we can assume it is because of the unpredictable combinations that basketball games are played at) - it is directly related to the sample size.

That, is exactly the problem with the way people in this forum misuse the +/- stat.

No, it is not. The problem is your inability to accept that math has a way to deal with confidence levels based on individual "random" events.

No, it's not. If five players play together for six minutes they will ALL have the exact same +/- for that six minute stretch.

Right. Small sample size, but right.

During those same six minutes, they will not all have exactly the same PER, scoring and rebounding stats.

Of course not, but the exact same PER over a stretch of a small segment of basketball game is worthless information. Again with the anecdotal evidence.

Are you saying Adam Morrison's inability to score in the NBA is the fault of his inferior Laker teammates?

No, I am just showing you that scoring is just as volatile to the team-mates and opponents as +/- - I am telling you that all these individual stats you present are just as situation dependent... negating the crux of your argument.

If you have a great scorer that never gets the ball from his team-mates, his scoring will suffer, if you have a great set-up man with players that can not score - his assists will suffer, etc, etc, etc...

 

[Rastapopoulos]

Rasta... are you really claiming that Martin isn't obviously better then Sergio but Brockman is???

Huh?

Rasta... are you really claiming that Martin isn't obviously better than Sergio at defense and rebounding but Brockman is???

Oh, right! Yes, yes I am. Among other things.

 

[Boob-No-More]

So... if a player has the BEST +/- on the team, he miraculously manages to luck into being on the court when the team is playing well better than any other player. Kind of a lucky charm, I guess. You'd think, given how sucky the Kings are, they might want more of the lucky charm rather than less. But then, there are things like "contracts" and "showcasing to offload" and stuff.

By that logic, Anderson Varejao is a better basketball player than Lebron James.

As I have said repeatedly regarding +/-... bad (or less good) players benefit from sharing the court with great players. Good (or great) players see their +/- negatively impacted by sharing the court with lesser players.

A player's +/- is also impacted by the five opponents on the court when he's in the game. That's why it's not unusual for a bench player to have a higher +/- than an obviously superior starter. The starter plays the bulk of his minutes against the other teams' best players. A bench player doesn't.

In Sergio's specific case, the sample size is very small, but he rarely plays against an opponents best players and lately, when he does play it's for six or seven minutes of garbage time. So, it's not suprising at all that he would have a better +/- than the Kings starters who play the bulk of their minutes against their opponents' best players.

This is directly reflected in the Kings +/- stats. Their five starters have the lowest +/- on the team. Above that is their second unit, and above that are their scrubs and garbage time players. No suprise there. This is typical for a team with a losing record. And, once again illustrates the fallacy of the +/- stat. A good player on a bad team will have a bad +/-.

BNM

 

[Boob-No-More]

So maybe, just maybe, the way to evaluate +/- is not to look at absolute values, but relative to a player's teammates? Or would that just make too much sense?

No, that makes no sense at all. It's a function of who you play with, who you play against and how many minutes you play. Is Anderson Varejao REALLY better than Lebron James? Hlee no he's not, but he plays on the same team and has a higher +/-. In fact, Anderson Varejao has the highest +/- in the entire NBA. Does that mean he's the best player in the league? No, it means he plays on the best team in the league and gets to play a lot of minutes next to the best players on that team, including one of the best players in the league. His +/- benefits from playing on good team next to a great player.

You make it sound like players operate in a vacuum and have nothing to do with other players or are not adaptable. And it doesn't seem to occur to you that the converse is true: that a player's PER is very much dependent on how a coach uses him, and to what extent his teammates help him get easy shots or feed him the ball.

No, I have never claimed players operate in the vaccuum. As I said many, many times, basketball is a team sport and +/- is a team stat. How do you get "vacuum" out of that?

Yes, a player's individual stats can be impacted by the quality of their teammates and their coach - to a limited degreee. They are still individual stats and more greatly influenced by the players own individual talents and skills. You can get Dan Gadzuric all the easy shots in the world, but he's still Dan Gadzuric and he'll still brick a large percentage of them.

BNM

 

[rocketeer]

So... if a player has the BEST +/- on the team, he miraculously manages to luck into being on the court when the team is playing well better than any other player. Kind of a lucky charm, I guess. You'd think, given how sucky the Kings are, they might want more of the lucky charm rather than less. But then, there are things like "contracts" and "showcasing to offload" and stuff.

sergio has played 23% of the time for the kings. he has played 8% of their "clutch minutes"(4th quarter or overtime, less than 5 minutes left, neither team ahead by more than 5 points).

that seems to indicate that sergio doesn't play a whole lot of minutes that matter(which is what you would expect from the 3rd string pg). playing a lot of your minutes during garbage time does weird things to +/-.